Suvarna Ranjit Kamble alias Suvarna Mahadev Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Heard finally at the admission stage by consent of both the sides.

Impugned in this writ petition is the order dated 18th June 2026 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the Petitioner towards the 'Mahar-Scheduled Caste', and the order dated 20th July 2026 passed by the Respondent No.5-Divisional Commissioner disqualifying the Petitioner from the membership of the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur from the Kasba-Sagaon constituency, which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste Woman.

The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the 'Mahar-Scheduled Caste'. The caste certificate to that effect was issued by the Competent Authority. The Petitioner contested the elections to the Kolhapur Zilla Parishad for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman. The Petitioner got elected. She submitted her caste certificate for verification to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner submitted several documents in support of her caste claim. The Petitioner's caste claim was referred to the Vigilance Cell for necessary inquiry. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report. The copy of the Vigilance Cell report was given to the Petitioner and the Petitioner submitted her say. The Respondent No.4, who lost the election against the Petitioner, filed her complaint before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee that, the Petitioner does not belong to the 'Mahar-Scheduled Caste'. On the basis of the documents on record, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order invalidating the Petitioner's caste claim.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the Petitioner had relied on the pre-Constitution era document of the blood relative-Akku, wherein the caste is shown as 'Mahar'. The Petitioner submitted the genealogy which shows that, the said pre-Constitution era document was of the sister of grandfather of Petitioner. The said pre-Constitution era document is discarded by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Vigilance Cell shows that, Akkubai (sister of Petitioner's grandfather) was related to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee did not give reasons to discard the Vigilance Cell report, though Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 ('Rules of 2012') notified on 31st August 2012 provides the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee and provides that, the Scrutiny Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the report of Vigilance Cell. The other ground on which the caste claim is invalidated is that, the Petitioner was the resident of Karnataka State and was not entitled to the benefits for the 'Mahar-Scheduled Caste' in the State of Maharashtra. The place Nipani, from where the Petitioner has migrated to Maharashtra, was the part of the erstwhile Bombay State, which was subsequently bifurcated and Nipani became the part of Karnataka State. He submitted that, the Government of Maharashtra had issued the Circular dated 10th July 2008 specifying that, the residence of the persons residing in 865 villages mentioned in the said circular from the State of Karnataka be considered, while calculating 15 years continuous stay in the State of Maharashtra in respect of the services under the State of Maharashtra. He submitted that, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he relied on :-

It is submitted by learned AGP that, the documents on record do not establish the blood relations between the Petitioner and Akku, who, according to the Petitioner, was the sister of her grandfather. Margu and Martand are different persons. The burden was on the Petitioner to prove her relations with the said Akku, which she failed to establish. The copy of photo of Margu do not show the alias name as 'Martand'. The major ground, on which the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has passed the order, is that, the relationship between the Petitioner and the Akku, whose entry is of pre-Constitution era, was not established. The Government Circular relied upon by the Petitioner was superseded by the subsequent Government Circular dated 12^th September 2008, which provides that, no benefits are to be extended to the residents of 865 villages, situated on the Karnataka-Maharashtra border. She submitted that, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has passed a reasoned order and no interference was called for in the same, and the petition be dismissed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4-Complainant that, the Vigilance Cell report do not show that, the Petitioner was having any relations with the Akku, whose record was of pre-Constitution era. The statements of the relatives and the villagers recorded during the vigilance inquiry do not support the Petitioner's claim. Each time the genealogy got changed. Martand had no nexus with Margu. The Petitioner could not prove the genealogy submitted by her. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee considered all the documents on record and passed a reasoned order, which calls for no interference, and the petition be dismissed. He placed on record the copies of certain documents, which were submitted before the Committee.

We perused the original record of the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Petitioner's case, made available by the learned AGP. The Petitioner based her caste claim as belonging to the Mahar-Scheduled Caste, primarily on the pre-Constitution era entry dated 20^th February 1938 in respect of the death of Akku showing caste as 'Mahar', resident of Bachani, in the revenue record of Tahsil office, Kagal, District Kolhapur. The Petitioner claims to be in blood relation to the said Akku from the paternal side. According to the Petitioner, Akku is the sister of her grandfather Martand/Margu Dadu Kamble. The Petitioner submitted the following genealogy before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee on affidavit dated 4^th April 2026 (Page Nos. 399 to 403 of the record):

The Petitioner was subjected to cross-examination by the Respondent No. 4-Complainant before the Scrutiny Committee. The said cross-examination is the part and parcel of the said affidavit of the Petitioner. It has come in the cross-examination that, Martand was having five children, out of which one was aunt Drupadabai and uncles-Pandu, Bandu, Dattatraya, and Janardan. The cross-examination shows that, a question was put to the Petitioner that, she did not name her father, to which she responded that, the name of her father was 'Mahadev'. This cross-examination will not by itself sufficient to discard the Petitioner's caste claim, as the same is to be decided on the basis of the documents on record.

The record shows that at page No. 365, there is the genealogy under the signature of Police Patil, Hasur, which is as under:

At page No. 367 of the record, there is the family tree certificate/genealogy certificate under the signature of Village Administrative Officer, Nipani, which is as under:

At page No. 173 of the record, there is the copy of the genealogy under the signature of Police Patil, Kembli, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. It shows that, the Police Patil issued the said genealogy dated 16th February 2026 at the instance of Respondent No.4-Complainant. The said reads as under:

The genealogies at Page Nos.365 and 367 referred above supports the Petitioner's claim. On the material aspect, both the said genealogies corroborate the genealogy submitted by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The genealogy at Page No.173 referred above, is supplied at the instance of the Respondent No.4-complainant and so for obvious reason will not support the Petitioner's claim.

At page No. 205, there is the copy of the affidavit dated 9^th March 2026 of Sangram Dattatraya Kamble, resident of Hasur Dhumala, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur, stating that, the name of his grandfather was 'Margu Dadu Kamble', and 'Martand' was never the name of 'Margu'. It further states that, Dadu Topanna Kamble was the father of Margu Dadu Kamble and there was no other person in the village by name 'Margu Kamble' except his grandfather. It further states that, Margu Kamble was having two sons by name Janardan and Dattatraya, and two daughters by name Indubai and Bebitai. It states that, Margu Kamble was not having the son by name Mahadev. However, at page 369, there is the affidavit of the same Sangram Dattatraya Kamble dated 20^th March 2026, stating that, the previous affidavit dated 9^th March 2026 was prepared under the influence of the Respondent No.4-Complainant and he had not read the contents of the said affidavit and was not aware of its contents. At page 383, there is another affidavit dated 20^th March 2016 of the same Sangram Dattatraya Kamble, stating that Margu Dadu Mahar/Kamble was his grandfather and on some documents his name was referred as 'Martand Dadu Mahar/Kamble'. It further states that 'Margu Dadu Mahar/Kamble' and Martand Dadu Mahar/Kamble' were one and the same person and both the names were of his grandfather. In his affidavit, he gives the following genealogy, which supports the genealogy submitted by the Petitioner :

The Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry, during which it verified the genuineness of the death entry of Akku dated 20^th February 1938, wherein the caste is shown as 'Mahar' and found the same to be without any interpolation or manipulation. The Vigilance Cell report indicates that, the said pre-Constitution era entry was found in the contemporaneous revenue record. The Vigilance Cell report further indicates that, the statements of 12 persons were recorded. Some of them were the residents of village Bachani, one was the resident of village Hasur, the Police Patil of Bachani, the Kotwal of Bachani, the residents of Nipani, aunt of the Petitioner, mother of the Petitioner and step-cousin brother of the Petitioner. The Vigilance Cell report shows that, though some of the persons, whose statements were recorded, stated that, they did not know the Appellant, they stated about the family of Dadu Kamble, who is shown as the great-grandfather of the Petitioner in the above referred genealogy. The Vigilance Cell report further shows that, some of the persons supported the Petitioner's caste claim.

The impugned order goes to show that, though the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee referred to the statements recorded during the Vigilance Cell inquiry, there is no observation in the impugned order to indicate as to whether they were accepted or discarded by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. In Ashvini Ramchandra Bhogam (supra), which was the petition against the invalidation of the caste certificate, it is observed that the provisions of Rule 17(7) of the Rules of 2012 casts a duty on the Scrutiny Committee to record its reasons for discarding the report of Vigilance Cell.

There is a copy of Notification in respect of change of name issued by the Government of Maharashtra, having the dates 4^th July to 10^th July 1995, wherein Mahadev Margu Kamble changed his name to Mahadev Martand Kamble. The Petitioner claims to be the daughter of the said Mahadev. This notification shows that, Mahadev was the son of Margu/Martand. In light of the above referred genealogy by the Police Patil, Hasur and Village Administrative Officer, Nipani, showing the name Margu alias Martand, the said Government Notification cannot be held to be against the Petitioner. On the contrary, it supports the Petitioner’s claim.

The other documents relied upon by the Petitioner are her own caste certificate; the school record in her name; the copy of the caste certificate of her father-Mahadev Martand Kamble; the 7/12 extract of Gat No. 95 of Village Bachani, Taluka Kagal of 1972–73, wherein the name Margu Dadu Kamble is mentioned; the extract issued by the Tahsildar, Kagal, District Kolhapur in respect of Survey No. 84/58, wherein there is reference of names Dattu Margu Kamble, Margu Dadu Kamble, Bapu Topanna Kamble, Bhujanga Topanna Kamble, and the land is referred as ‘Mahar Vatan Land’; the Mutation Entry No.693 of Village Bachani, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur in respect of Mahar Vatan Land in the name of Margu Dadu Kamble, Bapu Topanna Kamble, and Bhujang Topanna Kamble; the 7/12 extract in respect of Survey No.84 of Village Bachani, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur of the year 1966–67, wherein the names Margu Dadu Kamble, Bapu Topanna Kamble, and Bhujang Topanna Kamble are mentioned; the consolidation entry from the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Kagal in respect of land at Bachani, wherein there is reference of name-Margu Dadu Kamble and the affidavits of certain persons to the effect that, ‘Margu’ and ‘Martand’ were the names of one person and for the business purpose, he was at Nipani and the native place was Bachani and he had two wives, and due to the family dispute, he shifted from Bachani to Hasur, etc. The said documents were from revenue record. There is nothing to counter the said documents. These documents support the Petitioner’s claim.

The above discussed material on record indicates that, Margu and Martand were the names of the father of Mahadev. Petitioner is the daughter of Mahadev. The material on record shows that, the Petitioner was related to Akku from her parental side. The aforesaid genealogies and the pre-Constitution era document of Akku, having more probative value, showing the caste as ‘Mahar’ are not in dispute. The above discussion shows that, there is ample documentary material to support the Petitioner’s caste claim. Therefore, the reason given by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee that, the Petitioner failed to prove her relations with Akku by way of revenue documents, runs contrary to the record.

The other ground on which Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the Petitioner's caste claim is that, the Petitioner was not the resident of State of Maharashtra prior to the deemed date, i.e., 10^th August 1950 and, therefore, she was not entitled for the benefits of caste in the State of Maharashtra. The copy of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 placed on record by the learned counsel for the Petitioner shows that, Part III of the 'Schedule' to the said Order has the entry as 'Mahar' at Sr. No.22. The copy of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 placed on record by the learned counsel for the Petitioner shows that, Belgaum District, except Chandgad Taluka, and Bijapur, Dharwar and Kanara Districts, was in the erstwhile State of Bombay. Undisputedly, the address before the marriage of the Petitioner, as seen from the copy of her marriage certificate at page No.145 of the record, goes to show that, she was a resident of Nipani, Taluka Chikodi, District Belgaum and her marriage date was 24^th June 2003 and after her marriage, her matrimonial house was at Kasaba Sangav, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. The documents on record, which are relied upon by the Petitioner, shows the name of Margu Dadu Kamble in the revenue records of village Bachani, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. The Family Tree Certificate/Genealogy Certificate, as reproduced above, from Page No. 367 of the record, is by the Village Administrative Officer, Nipani (State of Karnataka), show the details of the ancestors of the Petitioner.

In Ravindra Sidram Rayamane (supra) and Akash Bhagwanbhai Solanki (supra), which were the petitions in respect of the caste claim, it is observed that, prior to the reorganisation, Nipani, Belgaum District was the part of Bombay State prior to reorganisation and upon reorganisation, Nipani became the part of Karnataka. It is further observed that, undisputedly, prior to the reorganisation of the State, both Chikodi Taluka in Belgaum District and Kolhapur were the part of State of Bombay, and only after the reorganisation, Kolhapur District has come in the State of Maharashtra, whereas Chikodi Taluka in Belgaum District goes in the State of Karnataka. In Satish Nishikant Phappe (supra), this Court considered the decision in Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra) and observed that, it was now well recognized that if both the places, i.e., the place from where the claimant has migrated and the place to which he has migrated, formed part of one and the same State before reorganisation and the caste/tribe is recognized in both the States after the State reorganisation, the claim cannot be rejected on the ground that, the claimant is a migrant, since the place of origin now does not form the part of the State.

As the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are more or less on the same issue, we need not burden the Judgment by discussing the said decision.

As there is no dispute on the aspect that, the above place, where the forefathers of Petitioner were residing, was the part of the State of Bombay before the reorganisation, the rejection of the Petitioner's caste claim on the ground that, she failed to establish that she was the resident of State of Maharashtra prior to 10^th August 1950, is unsustainable. The above discussion goes to show that, the ancestors of the Petitioner from paternal side were the resident of erstwhile State of Bombay before reorganization.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is liable to be quashed and set aside and consequently, the order of disqualification passed by Respondent No.5-Divisional Commissioner on 20^th July 2024 is also liable to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner becomes entitle for the validity certificate towards her caste claim as 'Mahar-Scheduled Caste'.

Hence, the following order: